For Civil Society to breathe freely, the Civil Society must take control

For Civil Society to breathe freely, the Civil Society must take control​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th April, 2017

I am afraid, the topic might be rated controversial by the commercial news media. The reasons is taking control can be interpreted in various ways however what is implied here is strengthening of the Judicial mechanisms rather than anything else. What’s on is rabble-rousing on what parties in power may want to achieve and often the commercial news media Journos tend to go with the flow. After all, ain’t we under constant threat/attack so goes the logic. The frenzy is heightened when we have some ‘provocation’ from the ‘outside’, you know from where... These article have a rather healthy track record on this count. The doubters may follow the link (http://www.managementparadise.com/article/6828/criticizing-institutions and this was during height of debate on NJAC bill). And let there be no doubts for those nationalists (who remain in constant animation) as well that the track record to respond to actual incidents is also quite healthy ( http://www.managementparadise.com/article/8950/ignoring-maslow-while-pushing-the-envelope-of-political-statesmanship ). Basically ‘hysteria’ as opposed to ‘incidents’ is built to around ‘possibilities and perceptions’, while ‘incidents’ do have a solid background even if the corroborative evidence so to say is contested by some party. What is however deemed importance for any progress is to focus on what as people, we may mean to the region and to the larger world community. What we ‘supply and deliver well’ and in return what we can ‘get’ to make best for ourselves. How can these strengths be improved further has been the essence of the ‘Game’ which is to explore the ‘people quotient’ and empower them further. Though the frenzy may be attempting to overlook the same for its own reason.

The situation doesn’t seem all that well ‘outside’ as well. The frenzied hyper activist taking control of the social and mass media with allegations flying out. What has perhaps been missing is lack of civil society’s ability to stay put for judicial mechanisms & perhaps overall civilian control. And this give the politico-strategic community an upper hand. This is when in some case at least the Judiciary seemed to have an upper hand when it withstood its ground against the then Military rulers. What perhaps is not appreciated is the qualitative difference in the debate/s. The issues like Jobs, Health, Education & progress are overlooked for issues like Faith (about which nearly everyone within same community/family has a different outlook with strong to weak variance from outlook of others), ‘national jingoism’, ‘response to stimuli (with several actual and concocted stimuli)’ etc. A Military which gets a significant amount of its feedstock from outside of ‘public revenues’ would want to manage ‘perceptions’ to keep itself supplied for manpower as well as ‘other support’ besides additional funds. The mechanisms to keep the frenzy on both sides seems to have some new advantage. It brings up ‘machismo’ for both sides for their respective stuntmen while its effects on ‘actual issues’ is clouded by the media. For the Judiciary to take a side-kick role along with the civil administration and a rather ineffective media (not very different from our’s), it should incumbent on civil society there, if there is one that is, to take note for itself. Ultimately, it is the civil society which has do decide to steer itself away from medievalism to progress or to stay there for a while. For the military too, that would have repercussions to keep up with technologies and progress with medieval mindsets and this too would become evident in due course of time. It might be a better idea for civil society (on both sides) to focus & strengthen civilian institutions rather for both the society/ies then stirring up frenzy with its action-reaction chain. This approach may look like some peace brigade’s idea but is rather quite different since it is just about society defining its own priorities for itself and working to strengthen itself rather than looking outside and getting distracted. However this may not mean being oblivious to ‘incidents’ or letting the guard down till some better environment/solution emerges since frenzy should go down for such an environment to emerge. In the meantime the society should also get empowerment to be able to ‘carry out of decision’ basis solution rather than looking towards nuisance makers or battle champs without results. Keeping away from hysteria should allow this as it may keep away things from snowballing into distractions. Let’s see the ‘Game’ evolve…

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

For Civil Society to breathe freely, the Civil Society must take control​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th April, 2017

I am afraid, the topic might be rated controversial by the commercial news media. The reasons is taking control can be interpreted in various ways however what is implied here is strengthening of the Judicial mechanisms rather than anything else. What’s on is rabble-rousing on what parties in power may want to achieve and often the commercial news media Journos tend to go with the flow. After all, ain’t we under constant threat/attack so goes the logic. The frenzy is heightened when we have some ‘provocation’ from the ‘outside’, you know from where... These article have a rather healthy track record on this count. The doubters may follow the link (http://www.managementparadise.com/article/6828/criticizing-institutions and this was during height of debate on NJAC bill). And let there be no doubts for those nationalists (who remain in constant animation) as well that the track record to respond to actual incidents is also quite healthy ( http://www.managementparadise.com/a...shing-the-envelope-of-political-statesmanship ). Basically ‘hysteria’ as opposed to ‘incidents’ is built to around ‘possibilities and perceptions’, while ‘incidents’ do have a solid background even if the corroborative evidence so to say is contested by some party. What is however deemed importance for any progress is to focus on what as people, we may mean to the region and to the larger world community. What we ‘supply and deliver well’ and in return what we can ‘get’ to make best for ourselves. How can these strengths be improved further has been the essence of the ‘Game’ which is to explore the ‘people quotient’ and empower them further. Though the frenzy may be attempting to overlook the same for its own reason.

The situation doesn’t seem all that well ‘outside’ as well. The frenzied hyper activist taking control of the social and mass media with allegations flying out. What has perhaps been missing is lack of civil society’s ability to stay put for judicial mechanisms & perhaps overall civilian control. And this give the politico-strategic community an upper hand. This is when in some case at least the Judiciary seemed to have an upper hand when it withstood its ground against the then Military rulers. What perhaps is not appreciated is the qualitative difference in the debate/s. The issues like Jobs, Health, Education & progress are overlooked for issues like Faith (about which nearly everyone within same community/family has a different outlook with strong to weak variance from outlook of others), ‘national jingoism’, ‘response to stimuli (with several actual and concocted stimuli)’ etc. A Military which gets a significant amount of its feedstock from outside of ‘public revenues’ would want to manage ‘perceptions’ to keep itself supplied for manpower as well as ‘other support’ besides additional funds. The mechanisms to keep the frenzy on both sides seems to have some new advantage. It brings up ‘machismo’ for both sides for their respective stuntmen while its effects on ‘actual issues’ is clouded by the media. For the Judiciary to take a side-kick role along with the civil administration and a rather ineffective media (not very different from our’s), it should incumbent on civil society there, if there is one that is, to take note for itself. Ultimately, it is the civil society which has do decide to steer itself away from medievalism to progress or to stay there for a while. For the military too, that would have repercussions to keep up with technologies and progress with medieval mindsets and this too would become evident in due course of time. It might be a better idea for civil society (on both sides) to focus & strengthen civilian institutions rather for both the society/ies then stirring up frenzy with its action-reaction chain. This approach may look like some peace brigade’s idea but is rather quite different since it is just about society defining its own priorities for itself and working to strengthen itself rather than looking outside and getting distracted. However this may not mean being oblivious to ‘incidents’ or letting the guard down till some better environment/solution emerges since frenzy should go down for such an environment to emerge. In the meantime the society should also get empowerment to be able to ‘carry out of decision’ basis solution rather than looking towards nuisance makers or battle champs without results. Keeping away from hysteria should allow this as it may keep away things from snowballing into distractions. Let’s see the ‘Game’ evolve…

This political article is a masterclass in architectural writing, where every element serves to construct a compelling argument. The writer's writing style is both authoritative and exceptionally precise, cutting through the common obfuscation of political discourse to reveal the core issues. There's an intellectual rigor evident in the prose, yet it remains remarkably accessible, guiding the reader through complex ideas without condescension. The structure of the piece is its backbone, meticulously designed to build a logical and unassailable case. Each paragraph and section is placed with strategic intent, creating a seamless flow that naturally leads to a profound understanding of the political landscape being discussed. Crucially, the unwavering clarity of the analysis is the article's greatest strength; every nuance of policy and every facet of political strategy are laid bare with such lucidity that the implications are undeniable and instantly graspable, making it an invaluable resource for informed citizens.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Thank you for your thoughtful article—one that dares to confront the dissonance between real issues and the distractions manufactured by both media and political agents. It is evident that your piece isn’t trying to stir controversy for its own sake but rather to provoke critical reflection. That said, your interpretation of “taking control” by advocating for stronger judicial mechanisms deserves a measured appreciation—especially in times when hysteria seems to drown out constitutional conversations.


It is refreshing to see a writer call out the commercial media’s tendency to feed the spectacle, often at the cost of nuance. Indeed, rabble-rousing and "perception management" have replaced balanced reportage in many mainstream outlets. Your article captures this reality without dismissing the public's genuine concerns. It is commendable that you distinguish between real incidents that require action and media-propelled hysteria rooted in political convenience. This is a critical distinction often lost in everyday discourse.


The linkage you draw between the judiciary, civil society, and the military-industrial information complex is both practical and layered. While strengthening institutions like the judiciary seems elementary, it is precisely what gets buried beneath layers of "faith debates," "hypernationalism," or manufactured "external threats." In this light, your emphasis on empowering civil society to reclaim its agency is more than idealistic—it’s strategic. Civil society cannot remain passive in the background and expect democratic systems to function effectively. For democracy to evolve, people must become both the voice and the spine of institutional reform.


However, it's equally important to recognize the duality in your tone—at once appreciative of our institutional legacy and critical of its limitations. This balance, though subtle, is rare. Still, a note of caution: while the military and certain media elements may be blamed for orchestrating narratives, we must not downplay the internal vulnerabilities within civil societies themselves. Disengaged citizens, polarised communities, and digital echo chambers also contribute to the chaos. Strengthening institutions is not only about resisting external provocation or military excesses; it’s also about reorienting society’s moral compass inward.


Your critique about selective outrage—where issues like employment, education, and healthcare take a backseat to emotive, divisive rhetoric—is especially pertinent. Indeed, societies don’t fail because of their enemies; they falter when their priorities are misaligned. This misalignment has allowed the public to be manipulated by 'battle champs' and 'media stuntmen' whose theatrics often produce no measurable social progress. The frenzy you describe is not spontaneous—it’s curated. And that’s the tragedy.


That said, the optimism in your closing note—the hope for an evolved 'Game' where society reclaims its voice through reason and institutional strength—deserves reinforcement. To steer toward progress, civil societies must focus on long-term empowerment rather than short-term hysteria. It’s not a pacifist dream; it’s a practical necessity.


#Hashtags:
#InstitutionalStrength #CivilSocietyMatters #MediaLiteracy #JudicialIndependence #BeyondHysteria #StrategicEmpowerment #RealIssuesMatter #ControversialButTrue #ThinkBeyondTheNoise #ProgressOverProvocation